Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Baseball cap-style folding cycle helmet designed by ex-SpaceX engineers smashes crowdfunding target (+ video)

Park & Diamond have exceeded $50,000 goal more than 13 times over – though we’re not sure about their casualty stats they cite

Park & Diamond have exceeded $50,000 goal more than 12 times over – though we’re not sure about their injury stats

A folding baseball cap style cycle helmet launched by a US start-up founded by two former SpaceX engineers has exceeded its $50,000 crowdfunding target more than 12 times over – although we’re not convinced by the stats the people behind it cite in their campaign.

So far, Brooklyn, New York-based Park & Diamond has received pledges totalling almost $650,000 on the crowdfunding website.

The name of the business – set up by two former SpaceX engineers – is derived from the intersection where the sister of Dave Hall, one of the co-founders was injured in a hit-and-run incident and sustained head injuries that led to her spending four months in a coma.

Thankfully, she has since recovered, but the assertion on the campaign page that she was “one of 85,000 Americans to suffer a traumatic brain injury from cycling-related accidents that year.”

We have no idea where that statistic comes from – it isn’t sourced – ibut n 2015 there were an estimated 45,000 cyclists injured in total in the United States, up around 2 per cent from a decade earlier.

Likewise, towards the top of the Indiegogo page, a photo of a bare-headed cyclist is accompanied by a caption that reads, “Recent stats show that 97 per cent of cyclists who died in accidents were not wearing a helmet.”

Now that one is sourced, to a New York City Department of Transportation study analysing statistics from 1996-2005, so “recent” is perhaps stretching it a bit.

One inference from that caption, however, is that those deaths were all attributable to head injuries sustained while not wearing a cycle helmet – something not borne out by looking more closely at the study.

But the study also highlights that just one cyclist fatality during that decade happened in a designated bike lane – indeed since then, the casualty rates of bike riders in New York City have tumbled as more dedicated infrastructure has been built.

That highlights something that Chris Boardman has repeatedly said – that making cyclists wear helmets is not even among the top 10 things that can be done to increase their safety.

Questions over statistics and the helmet debate aside, the Park & Diamond Foldable Bike Helmet is proving a huge hit on Indiegogo – it’s now two thirds of the way to hitting the million-dollar mark in backing with three weeks of its campaign left.

Find out more here.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

65 comments

Avatar
LastBoyScout | 5 years ago
0 likes

I wear a helmet and I've been glad of it in the handful of crashes I've had, as my head has hit the floor in a few of them and the helmet has done it's job and saved me from more serious injury. Only 4 of my crashes that I can think of were the result of being hit by another vehicle (2 cars, 2 cyclists) - the rest were the result of running out of grip/ability or mechanical failure.

I'm fully aware that it won't save me in every situation, but it will help in some.

Yes, other road users should be looking out for each other, but, sometimes, we miss each other or someone does something unexpected/stupid(/even downright nasty) and a wet leaf/bit of oil/glass/pothole/etc on the road is no respector of anyone.

If you don't want to wear a helmet, then that's fine by me and I'm not going to preach to you - I'm all in favour of personal choice on this one - but I'm going to carry on wearing mine.

Avatar
brooksby replied to LastBoyScout | 5 years ago
0 likes
LastBoyScout wrote:

I wear a helmet and I've been glad of it in the handful of crashes I've had, as my head has hit the floor in a few of them and the helmet has done it's job and saved me from more serious injury. Only 4 of my crashes that I can think of were the result of being hit by another vehicle (2 cars, 2 cyclists) - the rest were the result of running out of grip/ability or mechanical failure.

I used to wear a helmet but stopped.  In all of the crashes I've had (ice twice, oil once, not-so-dropped kerb once, car door once) my helmet remained absolutely pristine and it was my hands or shoulders which took the brunt. I don't usually wear anything on my head now.

(PS - How many fingers do you have on a hand?  Four crashes accounted for specifically only leaves one as "the rest"  )

Avatar
Daveyraveygravey replied to brooksby | 5 years ago
0 likes
brooksby wrote:
LastBoyScout wrote:

I wear a helmet and I've been glad of it in the handful of crashes I've had, as my head has hit the floor in a few of them and the helmet has done it's job and saved me from more serious injury. Only 4 of my crashes that I can think of were the result of being hit by another vehicle (2 cars, 2 cyclists) - the rest were the result of running out of grip/ability or mechanical failure.

I used to wear a helmet but stopped.  In all of the crashes I've had (ice twice, oil once, not-so-dropped kerb once, car door once) my helmet remained absolutely pristine and it was my hands or shoulders which took the brunt. I don't usually wear anything on my head now.

(PS - How many fingers do you have on a hand?  Four crashes accounted for specifically only leaves one as "the rest"  )

 

You may have been lucky, in my 5 crashes in 3.5 years, I have banged my helmeted head 4 times, possibly 5.  Two on ice, three downhill corners...all my own fault, although a mechanical issue may have contributed to one.  I'm not saying the helmet saved my life, or that they should be compulsory for everyone, but they definitely meant the recovery time allowed me to savour the broken bones, road rash and bike in shop for expensive repairs without a nasty headache.

Avatar
NPlus1Bikelights | 5 years ago
0 likes

In the three times I've needed a helmet to save me from low speed impacts (U turning car, chain issue at traffic light and a 100m long dog lead) it was from side impacts not on the top of your head unless you go over the bars, the side protection on this looks very thin and RIP ears at best. Maybe they met federal standards but how about European General Product Safety Regulations? I'll take a normal helmet with known side protection anyday, all the unique selling points here are ridiculous. 

2 of these 3 accidents resulted in using Specialized's post-crash returns and getting a brand new entry level helmet for £6-8 but this was a while back.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... | 5 years ago
1 like

The actual product doesn't look too bad.  At least it's not some high-tech laser-equipped, indicator flashing, GPS-assisted bit of lunacy.  It's a helmet with a different look, some might like that.

 

Obviously the marketing is dishonest, employing the usual grotesque misuse of stats that is characteristic of the unholy trinity of bike safety-gear marketing, gun control arguments, and Brexit debates.

Avatar
maviczap | 5 years ago
0 likes

Coppi, Bartelli, Bobet, Hainault, Fignon, Lemond, Indurain, Merckx etc etc

They didn't wear helmets in their careers, some did towards the end, neither did thousands of other racers, before helmet hysteria took over, or American advertising persuaded people to wear polystyrene domes on our heads.

When I started cycling there were no helmets, and no one got all hysterical about it. I've had a few spills in my time, and I'm still here. I'm grateful to the one time a helmet did save my bonce, but I'm not a helmet zealot.

I wear one through choice, but let's keep it that way.

By the way, clever idea, but I don't like the look of this helmet  1

Avatar
Zigster | 5 years ago
6 likes

Problem is, then the Government says, "Hey, look!  Everyone is wearing helmets.  Cycling is now safe.  No need for those expensive cycle lanes."

Avatar
ClubSmed replied to Zigster | 5 years ago
2 likes
Zigster wrote:

Problem is, then the Government says, "Hey, look!  Everyone is wearing helmets.  Cycling is now safe.  No need for those expensive cycle lanes."

I would argue that the Government bends to popular opinion and the more people that cycle the better we are heard by them.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to ClubSmed | 5 years ago
2 likes
ClubSmed wrote:
Zigster wrote:

Problem is, then the Government says, "Hey, look!  Everyone is wearing helmets.  Cycling is now safe.  No need for those expensive cycle lanes."

I would argue that the Government bends to popular opinion and the more people that cycle the better we are heard by them.

Ummm, if you're not from Earth, which planet are you from?  Fracking: opposed by the vast majority, voted against by the councils  involved, but the government forces it through. 

Having more people cycling is useful, but until we reach a significant minority, a lot more than the few percent now, governments can and will ignore us.  Doesn't stop them pretending though, with lots of nice words and almost no funding, while massive road schemes and HS2 with no economic case and massive environmental and social costs get nodded through.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to Zigster | 5 years ago
3 likes
Zigster wrote:

Problem is, then the Government says, "Hey, look!  Everyone is wearing helmets.  Cycling is now safe.  No need for those expensive cycle lanes."

Aided and abetted by British Cycling and Sportive/charity ride organisers who tell lies about the reasons why they have a no helmet no ride policy because it certainly isn't for insurance purposes, not when they fail to stipulate the correct helmet standard (one ride organiser even stated a bicycle code as being a helmet one!), not when they also state that third party injuries and costs due to crashing etc (whilst wearing a helmet) are to be covered by the participant, maybe the organisers think that wearing a helmet makes you a safer rider/less likely to cause a crash?

Not that helmets are required by insurers anyway which has been exposed several times that organisers are liars.

Helmet wearing has only come about in the UK due to government pressure and also that by road safety campaigners and police, not to mention that British Cycling's fucktarded response to what the UCI did, back of a fag packet reckoning on why one or two riders died, utterly ignoring the facts that have been shown to prove helmet wearing is massive failure/red herring everywhere and indeed proven to be the same failure in the pro ranks which has made the riding more dangerous, riders suffering more injuries and more pro riders dying since UCI made helmets compulsary.

Wannabe club riders just copy the pros and now many clubs have no helmet=no ride rules, there was even a CTC/CUK area group that basically forced through helmets to be worn because of a couple of shouty types and forced away one of the riders who wanted to ride as they'd done before.

Helmets have caused massive ructions, excluded people from participating and pushed away the focus of the actual problems. This is why I am so anti helmet, it's the worst thing to happen to cycling since the motorvehicle could go above 15mph IMHO.

More people have died, more people have had freedoms removed, generations of cyclists have packed in cycling and have been lost to motorvehicles and their kids too, sickeningly the law has been ignored and discrimination against cyclists is prevelent, all on the back of helmets/helmet wearing.

Avatar
ClubSmed | 5 years ago
0 likes

A lot of these arguments are circular "chicken or egg" type arguments.

  • We need better cycling infrastructure, but the government won't fund this well enough until enough people cycle
  • Enough people won't cycle because of safety concerns (despite statistics) and they don't want to wear helmets (normally for vanity reasons)
  • These people won't cycle without helmets until there is better cycling infrastructure.

 

If this is a product that can break into this circular issue and get people cycling who wouldn't have then I see it as a good thing. Once more people are cycling then the other elements of the circular arguments can be broken.

Avatar
Simon E replied to ClubSmed | 5 years ago
3 likes
ClubSmed wrote:

A lot of these arguments are circular "chicken or egg" type arguments.

  • We need better cycling infrastructure, but the government won't fund this well enough until enough people cycle
  • Enough people won't cycle because of safety concerns (despite statistics) and they don't want to wear helmets (normally for vanity reasons)
  • These people won't cycle without helmets until there is better cycling infrastructure.

 

If this is a product that can break into this circular issue and get people cycling who wouldn't have then I see it as a good thing. Once more people are cycling then the other elements of the circular arguments can be broken.

If you'd read the previous comments undermining the claims made for this piece of junk then you'd know that, just like the stupid indicators and 'clever' gadgets that surface every other week, it will do NOTHING to improve cycling levels.

Do you really, honestly think that people will see this pathetic little hat and think "Yep, that's gonna stop drivers close passing, SMIDSY, honking and abusing people on bikes and scaring the sh*t out of me. On shared paths all dog owners will keep their mutts on a short leash, the glass will disappear and they will be gritted in winter. It will totally transform the experience of cycling on the road. I will get on my bike tomorrow and wear it with pride."?

If you do then you really are living in cloud cuckoo land. Please return after waking up from the daydream.

I've just looked at the crowdfunder link. £117 + shipping.  Early birds can pay £64 but you won't be able to ride your bike for another 5 months (estimated). Fools.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Simon E | 5 years ago
0 likes
Simon E wrote:

I've just looked at the crowdfunder link. £117 + shipping.  Early birds can pay £64 but you won't be able to ride your bike for another 5 months (estimated). Fools.

I doubt they'll be able to deliver anything in that time frame.

I'm still waiting on a HedKayse (https://www.hedkayse.com/) helmet that I backed in 2016!

Avatar
ClubSmed replied to Simon E | 5 years ago
0 likes
Simon E wrote:
ClubSmed wrote:

A lot of these arguments are circular "chicken or egg" type arguments.

  • We need better cycling infrastructure, but the government won't fund this well enough until enough people cycle
  • Enough people won't cycle because of safety concerns (despite statistics) and they don't want to wear helmets (normally for vanity reasons)
  • These people won't cycle without helmets until there is better cycling infrastructure.

 

If this is a product that can break into this circular issue and get people cycling who wouldn't have then I see it as a good thing. Once more people are cycling then the other elements of the circular arguments can be broken.

If you'd read the previous comments undermining the claims made for this piece of junk then you'd know that, just like the stupid indicators and 'clever' gadgets that surface every other week, it will do NOTHING to improve cycling levels.

Do you really, honestly think that people will see this pathetic little hat and think "Yep, that's gonna stop drivers close passing, SMIDSY, honking and abusing people on bikes and scaring the sh*t out of me. On shared paths all dog owners will keep their mutts on a short leash, the glass will disappear and they will be gritted in winter. It will totally transform the experience of cycling on the road. I will get on my bike tomorrow and wear it with pride."?

If you do then you really are living in cloud cuckoo land. Please return after waking up from the daydream.

I've just looked at the crowdfunder link. £117 + shipping.  Early birds can pay £64 but you won't be able to ride your bike for another 5 months (estimated). Fools.

No helmet will ever do the things that you are stating, there is no one thing that is going to solve all the issues facing cycling. If you are waiting for something that will it is you living in cloud cuckoo land!

Some people do wear helmets (despite there being no hard evidence on their safety either way) because they are like some sort of magic invisible cape that will make them invincible. All this product has to do is convince enough people who would cycle with a magic cape (but don't want to because of an image issue) that this is the answer and it will help.

Avatar
ClubSmed replied to Simon E | 5 years ago
1 like
Simon E wrote:

I've just looked at the crowdfunder link. £117 + shipping.  Early birds can pay £64 but you won't be able to ride your bike for another 5 months (estimated). Fools.

In my experience these crowdfunding campaigns are as much about guaging the market and gaining pre-launch advertising/buzz/hype as they are about gaining financial backing. As for the price of the item, the early birds may get a discount on the RRP of the product, but who pays for products at RRP? You will find that not long after launch you will probably see them available online for below RRP (as with just about any product) and closer to the early bird prices. So if you take the more likely online retail cost of £64 for a helmet, it does not seem that crazy to me (I have certianly paid more for one, haven't you?).

I am not going to buy one of these, but I can see a potential market (and the amount they have gone over their funding target would indicate that this market exists).

I am not claiming that this helmet magicly saves people, but if non cyclists believe it will enough to get them on the bike then that can't be a bad thing.

Avatar
nortonpdj | 5 years ago
1 like

If this ridiculous headgear gets a few currently bare-headed riders to wear a helmet, surely that's not a bad thing?

The figures on accidents, deaths and stuff are lies, but so is a lot of advertising. 

Avatar
Simon E replied to nortonpdj | 5 years ago
8 likes
nortonpdj wrote:

If this ridiculous headgear gets a few currently bare-headed riders to wear a helmet, surely that's not a bad thing?

Why?

It doesn't work, it will just instil a false sense of security in the wearer.

Avatar
vonhelmet replied to nortonpdj | 5 years ago
4 likes
nortonpdj wrote:

If this ridiculous headgear gets a few currently bare-headed riders to wear a helmet, surely that's not a bad thing?

The figures on accidents, deaths and stuff are lies, but so is a lot of advertising. 

And if drivers compensate for the apparently reduced risk by driving more dangerously, then what?

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to nortonpdj | 5 years ago
1 like
nortonpdj wrote:

If this ridiculous headgear gets a few currently bare-headed riders to wear a helmet, surely that's not a bad thing?

The figures on accidents, deaths and stuff are lies, but so is a lot of advertising. 

 

It's not a bad thing, but I'd suggest it's a completely irrelevant thing.  Look at the cost of it!  The numbers of non-wearers it's likely to convert will be close to zero, and given how hugely questionable, even unknowable, the effect of wearing a helmet is, I don't beleive it will have any effect at all on cycling safety overall.

 

The argument for it is that some existing helmet wearers (with a lot of disposable income) might gain some aesthetic pleasure because they prefer the look of it to the traditional kind.  That's a valid, if limited, reason and is entirely up to them.

 

The market will decide, I guess.  But in the bigger picture it's just not significant.

Avatar
fenix replied to nortonpdj | 5 years ago
1 like
nortonpdj wrote:

If this ridiculous headgear gets a few currently bare-headed riders to wear a helmet, surely that's not a bad thing?

The figures on accidents, deaths and stuff are lies, but so is a lot of advertising. 

 

Because it's not the lack of helmets that causes the injuries - it's the bloody cars hitting us in the first place.  They even talk about this in their PR.  Someones sister got hurt in a hit and run...

 

So invent something to stop that happening - not something you can make a quick buck out of whilst not solving the issue.  

Avatar
fenix replied to nortonpdj | 5 years ago
0 likes
nortonpdj wrote:

If this ridiculous headgear gets a few currently bare-headed riders to wear a helmet, surely that's not a bad thing?

The figures on accidents, deaths and stuff are lies, but so is a lot of advertising. 

 

Because it's not the lack of helmets that causes the injuries - it's the bloody cars hitting us in the first place.  They even talk about this in their PR.  Someones sister got hurt in a hit and run...

 

So invent something to stop that happening - not something you can make a quick buck out of whilst not solving the issue.  

Avatar
ClubSmed replied to fenix | 5 years ago
0 likes
fenix wrote:
nortonpdj wrote:

If this ridiculous headgear gets a few currently bare-headed riders to wear a helmet, surely that's not a bad thing?

The figures on accidents, deaths and stuff are lies, but so is a lot of advertising. 

 

Because it's not the lack of helmets that causes the injuries - it's the bloody cars hitting us in the first place.  They even talk about this in their PR.  Someones sister got hurt in a hit and run...

 

So invent something to stop that happening - not something you can make a quick buck out of whilst not solving the issue.  

I don't believe there is ever going to be a one solution that stops this happening, do you really believe that there is?

If you accept that there is no one solution that can stop it happening then maybe we should accept that it needs addressing through lots of different ways that tackle the seperate issues seperately to be more effective.

One such issue is that drivers do not "see" cyclists, a part of the reason for this is that they are not looking for them, because they do not expect to see them, because there are not enough on the road to occupy their mind.

A solution that could get more people on the road and cycling can go someway to address  this issue and move the whole piece forward just a little.

Avatar
davel replied to ClubSmed | 5 years ago
0 likes
ClubSmed wrote:
fenix wrote:
nortonpdj wrote:

If this ridiculous headgear gets a few currently bare-headed riders to wear a helmet, surely that's not a bad thing?

The figures on accidents, deaths and stuff are lies, but so is a lot of advertising. 

 

Because it's not the lack of helmets that causes the injuries - it's the bloody cars hitting us in the first place.  They even talk about this in their PR.  Someones sister got hurt in a hit and run...

 

So invent something to stop that happening - not something you can make a quick buck out of whilst not solving the issue.  

I don't believe there is ever going to be a one solution that stops this happening, do you really believe that there is?

If you accept that there is no one solution that can stop it happening then maybe we should accept that it needs addressing through lots of different ways that tackle the seperate issues seperately to be more effective.

One such issue is that drivers do not "see" cyclists, a part of the reason for this is that they are not looking for them, because they do not expect to see them, because there are not enough on the road to occupy their mind.

A solution that could get more people on the road and cycling can go someway to address  this issue and move the whole piece forward just a little.

And yet, in ALL places that have mandated helmet use, cycling rates decrease. There is evidence that focus on helmets leads to a decrease in cycling, and no evidence that it increases cycling uptake. You can much more confidently state 'helmets = decreased cycling' than you can state 'helmets = increased cycling'.

So, using your argument that more cyclists = safer cyclists (which I agree with), presumably something that might decrease cycling rates is A Bad Thing.

Avatar
ClubSmed replied to davel | 5 years ago
0 likes
davel wrote:
ClubSmed wrote:
fenix wrote:
nortonpdj wrote:

If this ridiculous headgear gets a few currently bare-headed riders to wear a helmet, surely that's not a bad thing?

The figures on accidents, deaths and stuff are lies, but so is a lot of advertising. 

 

Because it's not the lack of helmets that causes the injuries - it's the bloody cars hitting us in the first place.  They even talk about this in their PR.  Someones sister got hurt in a hit and run...

 

So invent something to stop that happening - not something you can make a quick buck out of whilst not solving the issue.  

I don't believe there is ever going to be a one solution that stops this happening, do you really believe that there is?

If you accept that there is no one solution that can stop it happening then maybe we should accept that it needs addressing through lots of different ways that tackle the seperate issues seperately to be more effective.

One such issue is that drivers do not "see" cyclists, a part of the reason for this is that they are not looking for them, because they do not expect to see them, because there are not enough on the road to occupy their mind.

A solution that could get more people on the road and cycling can go someway to address  this issue and move the whole piece forward just a little.

And yet, in ALL places that have mandated helmet use, cycling rates decrease. There is evidence that focus on helmets leads to a decrease in cycling, and no evidence that it increases cycling uptake. You can much more confidently state 'helmets = decreased cycling' than you can state 'helmets = increased cycling'.

So, using your argument that more cyclists = safer cyclists (which I agree with), presumably something that might decrease cycling rates is A Bad Thing.

Woah, who suggested manated helmet use?

I am just pointing out that from some of the studies on barriers to cycling there is a significant number that claim safety concerns and won't wear a helmet for image concerns. within that group it is possible that there is a percentage that could be justify that the use of a helmet such as this aleviates their safety concern and solves their image concern.

I am not saying that this will solve everything that is wrong with cycling, but I don't believe that any one thing will. This is a problem that needs to have lots of solutions targeting multiple issues effectively.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to ClubSmed | 5 years ago
1 like
ClubSmed wrote:

Woah, who suggested manated helmet use?

Is that to protect them from boats?

 

Avatar
davel replied to ClubSmed | 5 years ago
0 likes
ClubSmed wrote:
davel wrote:
ClubSmed wrote:
fenix wrote:
nortonpdj wrote:

If this ridiculous headgear gets a few currently bare-headed riders to wear a helmet, surely that's not a bad thing?

The figures on accidents, deaths and stuff are lies, but so is a lot of advertising. 

 

Because it's not the lack of helmets that causes the injuries - it's the bloody cars hitting us in the first place.  They even talk about this in their PR.  Someones sister got hurt in a hit and run...

 

So invent something to stop that happening - not something you can make a quick buck out of whilst not solving the issue.  

I don't believe there is ever going to be a one solution that stops this happening, do you really believe that there is?

If you accept that there is no one solution that can stop it happening then maybe we should accept that it needs addressing through lots of different ways that tackle the seperate issues seperately to be more effective.

One such issue is that drivers do not "see" cyclists, a part of the reason for this is that they are not looking for them, because they do not expect to see them, because there are not enough on the road to occupy their mind.

A solution that could get more people on the road and cycling can go someway to address  this issue and move the whole piece forward just a little.

And yet, in ALL places that have mandated helmet use, cycling rates decrease. There is evidence that focus on helmets leads to a decrease in cycling, and no evidence that it increases cycling uptake. You can much more confidently state 'helmets = decreased cycling' than you can state 'helmets = increased cycling'.

So, using your argument that more cyclists = safer cyclists (which I agree with), presumably something that might decrease cycling rates is A Bad Thing.

Woah, who suggested manated helmet use?

I am just pointing out that from some of the studies on barriers to cycling there is a significant number that claim safety concerns and won't wear a helmet for image concerns. within that group it is possible that there is a percentage that could be justify that the use of a helmet such as this aleviates their safety concern and solves their image concern.

I am not saying that this will solve everything that is wrong with cycling, but I don't believe that any one thing will. This is a problem that needs to have lots of solutions targeting multiple issues effectively.

I know you haven't suggested mandating; I'm countering your argument, by saying there is no evidence for helmet 'encouragement' or products leading to people cycling. The converse (decrease in cycling) we do have evidence for, via places that HAVE mandated. 

Avatar
ClubSmed replied to davel | 5 years ago
0 likes
davel wrote:
ClubSmed wrote:
davel wrote:
ClubSmed wrote:
fenix wrote:
nortonpdj wrote:

If this ridiculous headgear gets a few currently bare-headed riders to wear a helmet, surely that's not a bad thing?

The figures on accidents, deaths and stuff are lies, but so is a lot of advertising. 

 

Because it's not the lack of helmets that causes the injuries - it's the bloody cars hitting us in the first place.  They even talk about this in their PR.  Someones sister got hurt in a hit and run...

 

So invent something to stop that happening - not something you can make a quick buck out of whilst not solving the issue.  

I don't believe there is ever going to be a one solution that stops this happening, do you really believe that there is?

If you accept that there is no one solution that can stop it happening then maybe we should accept that it needs addressing through lots of different ways that tackle the seperate issues seperately to be more effective.

One such issue is that drivers do not "see" cyclists, a part of the reason for this is that they are not looking for them, because they do not expect to see them, because there are not enough on the road to occupy their mind.

A solution that could get more people on the road and cycling can go someway to address  this issue and move the whole piece forward just a little.

And yet, in ALL places that have mandated helmet use, cycling rates decrease. There is evidence that focus on helmets leads to a decrease in cycling, and no evidence that it increases cycling uptake. You can much more confidently state 'helmets = decreased cycling' than you can state 'helmets = increased cycling'.

So, using your argument that more cyclists = safer cyclists (which I agree with), presumably something that might decrease cycling rates is A Bad Thing.

Woah, who suggested manated helmet use?

I am just pointing out that from some of the studies on barriers to cycling there is a significant number that claim safety concerns and won't wear a helmet for image concerns. within that group it is possible that there is a percentage that could be justify that the use of a helmet such as this aleviates their safety concern and solves their image concern.

I am not saying that this will solve everything that is wrong with cycling, but I don't believe that any one thing will. This is a problem that needs to have lots of solutions targeting multiple issues effectively.

I know you haven't suggested mandating; I'm countering your argument, by saying there is no evidence for helmet 'encouragement' or products leading to people cycling. The converse (decrease in cycling) we do have evidence for, via places that HAVE mandated. 

No, what you have is evidence that when helmets are mandated in an environment where this product does not exist, it reduces cycling figures. In an environment where lots of hills exist it reduces cycling figures, that does not mean that the advent of wide ranging gears and ebikes cannot make that reduction less.

The advent of this product is not bringing forth the manatory enforcement of helmet wearing or the apocolypse.

We do not know if the figures on mandatory helmet wearing would have decreased at the same rate if this product existed at the time.

To cover a previous point about Giro having made a similar product in the 90s, that product was aimed at children. Children do not have the same safety fears as adults, but do have major fears about looking cool and fitting in, so the failure is understandable. Adults have lots of safety fears and less (but not zero) issues with having to look cool

Avatar
davel replied to ClubSmed | 5 years ago
0 likes
ClubSmed wrote:
davel wrote:
ClubSmed wrote:
davel wrote:
ClubSmed wrote:
fenix wrote:
nortonpdj wrote:

If this ridiculous headgear gets a few currently bare-headed riders to wear a helmet, surely that's not a bad thing?

The figures on accidents, deaths and stuff are lies, but so is a lot of advertising. 

 

Because it's not the lack of helmets that causes the injuries - it's the bloody cars hitting us in the first place.  They even talk about this in their PR.  Someones sister got hurt in a hit and run...

 

So invent something to stop that happening - not something you can make a quick buck out of whilst not solving the issue.  

I don't believe there is ever going to be a one solution that stops this happening, do you really believe that there is?

If you accept that there is no one solution that can stop it happening then maybe we should accept that it needs addressing through lots of different ways that tackle the seperate issues seperately to be more effective.

One such issue is that drivers do not "see" cyclists, a part of the reason for this is that they are not looking for them, because they do not expect to see them, because there are not enough on the road to occupy their mind.

A solution that could get more people on the road and cycling can go someway to address  this issue and move the whole piece forward just a little.

And yet, in ALL places that have mandated helmet use, cycling rates decrease. There is evidence that focus on helmets leads to a decrease in cycling, and no evidence that it increases cycling uptake. You can much more confidently state 'helmets = decreased cycling' than you can state 'helmets = increased cycling'.

So, using your argument that more cyclists = safer cyclists (which I agree with), presumably something that might decrease cycling rates is A Bad Thing.

Woah, who suggested manated helmet use?

I am just pointing out that from some of the studies on barriers to cycling there is a significant number that claim safety concerns and won't wear a helmet for image concerns. within that group it is possible that there is a percentage that could be justify that the use of a helmet such as this aleviates their safety concern and solves their image concern.

I am not saying that this will solve everything that is wrong with cycling, but I don't believe that any one thing will. This is a problem that needs to have lots of solutions targeting multiple issues effectively.

I know you haven't suggested mandating; I'm countering your argument, by saying there is no evidence for helmet 'encouragement' or products leading to people cycling. The converse (decrease in cycling) we do have evidence for, via places that HAVE mandated. 

No, what you have is evidence that when helmets are mandated in an environment where this product does not exist, it reduces cycling figures. In an environment where lots of hills exist it reduces cycling figures, that does not mean that the advent of wide ranging gears and ebikes cannot make that reduction less.

The advent of this product is not bringing forth the manatory enforcement of helmet wearing or the apocolypse.

We do not know if the figures on mandatory helmet wearing would have decreased at the same rate if this product existed at the time.

To cover a previous point about Giro having made a similar product in the 90s, that product was aimed at children. Children do not have the same safety fears as adults, but do have major fears about looking cool and fitting in, so the failure is understandable. Adults have lots of safety fears and less (but not zero) issues with having to look cool

You know what's really got zero evidence?

That this might be a "solution that could get more people on the road and cycling".

Guess who said that. Up there. Under your name.

Avatar
ClubSmed replied to davel | 5 years ago
0 likes
davel wrote:
ClubSmed wrote:
davel wrote:
ClubSmed wrote:
davel wrote:
ClubSmed wrote:
fenix wrote:
nortonpdj wrote:

If this ridiculous headgear gets a few currently bare-headed riders to wear a helmet, surely that's not a bad thing?

The figures on accidents, deaths and stuff are lies, but so is a lot of advertising. 

 

Because it's not the lack of helmets that causes the injuries - it's the bloody cars hitting us in the first place.  They even talk about this in their PR.  Someones sister got hurt in a hit and run...

 

So invent something to stop that happening - not something you can make a quick buck out of whilst not solving the issue.  

I don't believe there is ever going to be a one solution that stops this happening, do you really believe that there is?

If you accept that there is no one solution that can stop it happening then maybe we should accept that it needs addressing through lots of different ways that tackle the seperate issues seperately to be more effective.

One such issue is that drivers do not "see" cyclists, a part of the reason for this is that they are not looking for them, because they do not expect to see them, because there are not enough on the road to occupy their mind.

A solution that could get more people on the road and cycling can go someway to address  this issue and move the whole piece forward just a little.

And yet, in ALL places that have mandated helmet use, cycling rates decrease. There is evidence that focus on helmets leads to a decrease in cycling, and no evidence that it increases cycling uptake. You can much more confidently state 'helmets = decreased cycling' than you can state 'helmets = increased cycling'.

So, using your argument that more cyclists = safer cyclists (which I agree with), presumably something that might decrease cycling rates is A Bad Thing.

Woah, who suggested manated helmet use?

I am just pointing out that from some of the studies on barriers to cycling there is a significant number that claim safety concerns and won't wear a helmet for image concerns. within that group it is possible that there is a percentage that could be justify that the use of a helmet such as this aleviates their safety concern and solves their image concern.

I am not saying that this will solve everything that is wrong with cycling, but I don't believe that any one thing will. This is a problem that needs to have lots of solutions targeting multiple issues effectively.

I know you haven't suggested mandating; I'm countering your argument, by saying there is no evidence for helmet 'encouragement' or products leading to people cycling. The converse (decrease in cycling) we do have evidence for, via places that HAVE mandated. 

No, what you have is evidence that when helmets are mandated in an environment where this product does not exist, it reduces cycling figures. In an environment where lots of hills exist it reduces cycling figures, that does not mean that the advent of wide ranging gears and ebikes cannot make that reduction less.

The advent of this product is not bringing forth the manatory enforcement of helmet wearing or the apocolypse.

We do not know if the figures on mandatory helmet wearing would have decreased at the same rate if this product existed at the time.

To cover a previous point about Giro having made a similar product in the 90s, that product was aimed at children. Children do not have the same safety fears as adults, but do have major fears about looking cool and fitting in, so the failure is understandable. Adults have lots of safety fears and less (but not zero) issues with having to look cool

You know what's really got zero evidence?

That this might be a "solution that could get more people on the road and cycling".

Guess who said that. Up there. Under your name.

I agree, there is no evidence that it will get more people to cycle, that is why I said that it *could* get more people to cycle. There is also no evidence that the introduction of such a product would decrease the number of cyclists as seems to be suggested. To my mind though, one of those is a possibility and the other isn't.

Avatar
davel replied to ClubSmed | 5 years ago
0 likes
ClubSmed wrote:
davel wrote:
ClubSmed wrote:
davel wrote:
ClubSmed wrote:
davel wrote:
ClubSmed wrote:
fenix wrote:
nortonpdj wrote:

If this ridiculous headgear gets a few currently bare-headed riders to wear a helmet, surely that's not a bad thing?

The figures on accidents, deaths and stuff are lies, but so is a lot of advertising. 

 

Because it's not the lack of helmets that causes the injuries - it's the bloody cars hitting us in the first place.  They even talk about this in their PR.  Someones sister got hurt in a hit and run...

 

So invent something to stop that happening - not something you can make a quick buck out of whilst not solving the issue.  

I don't believe there is ever going to be a one solution that stops this happening, do you really believe that there is?

If you accept that there is no one solution that can stop it happening then maybe we should accept that it needs addressing through lots of different ways that tackle the seperate issues seperately to be more effective.

One such issue is that drivers do not "see" cyclists, a part of the reason for this is that they are not looking for them, because they do not expect to see them, because there are not enough on the road to occupy their mind.

A solution that could get more people on the road and cycling can go someway to address  this issue and move the whole piece forward just a little.

And yet, in ALL places that have mandated helmet use, cycling rates decrease. There is evidence that focus on helmets leads to a decrease in cycling, and no evidence that it increases cycling uptake. You can much more confidently state 'helmets = decreased cycling' than you can state 'helmets = increased cycling'.

So, using your argument that more cyclists = safer cyclists (which I agree with), presumably something that might decrease cycling rates is A Bad Thing.

Woah, who suggested manated helmet use?

I am just pointing out that from some of the studies on barriers to cycling there is a significant number that claim safety concerns and won't wear a helmet for image concerns. within that group it is possible that there is a percentage that could be justify that the use of a helmet such as this aleviates their safety concern and solves their image concern.

I am not saying that this will solve everything that is wrong with cycling, but I don't believe that any one thing will. This is a problem that needs to have lots of solutions targeting multiple issues effectively.

I know you haven't suggested mandating; I'm countering your argument, by saying there is no evidence for helmet 'encouragement' or products leading to people cycling. The converse (decrease in cycling) we do have evidence for, via places that HAVE mandated. 

No, what you have is evidence that when helmets are mandated in an environment where this product does not exist, it reduces cycling figures. In an environment where lots of hills exist it reduces cycling figures, that does not mean that the advent of wide ranging gears and ebikes cannot make that reduction less.

The advent of this product is not bringing forth the manatory enforcement of helmet wearing or the apocolypse.

We do not know if the figures on mandatory helmet wearing would have decreased at the same rate if this product existed at the time.

To cover a previous point about Giro having made a similar product in the 90s, that product was aimed at children. Children do not have the same safety fears as adults, but do have major fears about looking cool and fitting in, so the failure is understandable. Adults have lots of safety fears and less (but not zero) issues with having to look cool

You know what's really got zero evidence?

That this might be a "solution that could get more people on the road and cycling".

Guess who said that. Up there. Under your name.

I agree, there is no evidence that it will get more people to cycle, that is why I said that it *could* get more people to cycle. There is also no evidence that the introduction of such a product would decrease the number of cyclists as seems to be suggested. To my mind though, one of those is a possibility and the other isn't.

Can't really argue with that.

Because mandating helmets = decrease in cyclists, I think it logically follows that focus on helmets = a less severe decrease in cyclists, but I accept I'm stretching there, with no supporting evidence.

Pages

Latest Comments